There are two parties in the rental car transaction:
Hertz <-> Driver
The AirBnB transaction has three parties:
AirBnB <-> Host <-> Guest
While you can construct sentences that look similar for both cases, and the word "license" is used in both contexts, it's a fundamentally different dynamic.
That's incorrect. AirBnB provides a platform on which hosts can list their properties. There are two parties to that transaction.
In case you're talking about the subsequent 'rental' transaction, AirBnB is pretty clear that that's between the host and the guest. See section 5 of their ToS:
https://www.airbnb.com/terms
You're being downvoted because you are not considering land use and zoning issues. Hosts need to register to ensure that they don't convert their properties into full time hotels in buildings designed for residential use.
> You're being downvoted because you are not considering land use and zoning issues.
Don't care about downvotes but I care about arguments.
Uber and Lyft will check the drivers license even if government does not make it mandatory because a licensed and well experienced driver is in in the interest of Uber and Lyft.
I could not care less about "zoning laws" which serve no purpose to most sensible people and I dont see why AirBnB should give a damn about zoning laws. Also I would oppose government move to force these laws down people throats by forcing AirBnB hosts to have licenses.
>Hosts need to register to ensure that they don't convert their properties into full time hotels in buildings designed for residential use.
But that is the whole "innovation" in AirBnB. The very fact that AirBnB is cool because one does not have to comply the mountain of regulations that Motel 6 has to comply with.
I will be very happy to live in a residential property that is converted into defacto hotel through AirBnB.
But mostly the city wants to ensure they get paid and keep the lodging industry off their backs. Hotels pay occupancy taxes and want AirBnBs to have that encumbrance.
I have a property in an area that has it all figured out and I had to get it certified by an inspector, pay some fees, and submit occupancy taxes. Most skirt the laws.
Chicago did it right in my opinion by requiring AirBnB to manage and submit the taxes and fees.
The city is facing huge pressure from local residents because the price of housing has gone up dramatically in the past few years. Property owners taking rental properties off the market to turn them into unlicensed full-time hotels through Airbnb further reduces housing stock, in addition to forcing a bunch of negative externalities onto neighbors who have little recourse. Most local residents who aren’t themselves Airbnb hosts are on the city’s side here.
The hotel industry is certainly unhappy with Airbnb, but they’re far from the only ones.
Yes but citizens and activist groups aren't flushing policy makers and the city with money. They're enraged, and rightfully so in many areas.
My point was - if the city can get their $ from their policies they will enable airbnbs like Chicago recently did.
At the same time - Airbnb is just one small piece of the puzzle for the rise in housing prices. I don't understand why some people think they are entitled to live in an area in demand?
If someone wants to start scooping up real estate and homeowners are selling at higher prices, comps go up, everyone's values go up along with property taxes. That's how it works.
Now - homeowners whose values go up should be enraged about property tax increases. The city's budget shouldn't vary much from year to year, but if home prices go up substantially they get more property tax revenue. Why? And then if they go down - they don't help you out.